HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2005 Adjourned Meeting 236;
ADJOURNED MEETING
AUGUST 23, 2005 - 7:30 A.M. - 9:00 A.M.
YAKIMA CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Roll CaII
Present:
Council: Assistant Mayor Neil McClure, presiding, Council Members Ron
Bonlender, Dave Edler, Mary Place, Bernard Sims, and Susan
Whitman (after 7:45 a.m.)
Absent: Mayor Paul George (excused)
Staff: Dick Zais, City Manager; Linda Watkins, Acting City Clerk; Doug
Maples, Planning and Code Enforcement Manager; Bruce Benson,
Planning Supervisor, and Ken Harper, Legal Counsel
2. Study Session on the zoning ordinance ,
Doug Maples, Planning and Code Enforcement Manager, said many of the items
needing to be changed in the zoning ordinance are minor in nature and can be reviewed
and changed in the future, but he cautioned that 1) staff is very busy, and 2) many items
need to wait until after the 2006 Comprehensive Plan update is completed. Some of the
Comp Plan changes may cause changes to the zoning ordinance.
City Manager Zais explained that the issue of non - project specific rezones is the
fundamental reason for today's study session. Council Member Place said she believes
we need to have the appropriate road standards, sidewalks, landscaping and
maintenance included in our zoning ordinance and some of those things are not there
now.
Ken Harper, consulting attorney, explained that at this meeting we hope to get a sense
of Council's concerns with regard to non - project rezones. Any rezone not associated
with a use could be categorized as a non - project rezone. People don't care what zoning
district surrounds them but do care a lot about land use around them. The challenge is
land owners don't always know what they want to do but perceive the current zoning is a
hindrance for marketing and development. One of the ways land gets utilized better is
through a non - project rezone process. Commercial development is facilitated by the
ability to do non - project rezones. Environmental review for a non - project rezone is
trickier. Typically, most of the specific reviews are deferred until a project comes along.
The risk is that momentum builds up and when a compatible use does come along it
gets harder to stop and evaluate.
SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) gives planning a number of tools to make sure
non - project really is such. Sometimes developers really do have a project in the back of
their mind, and a non - project rezone lays the foundation, it gains momentum and
eliminates some hitches later. We're making it clearer to the developer that claiming
non - project when there really is a project is a basis to withdraw the SEPA determination.
If it is a non - project rezone, we will defer the requirement for infrastructure build -up until
there is a project.
ADJOURNED MEETING — AUGUST 23, 2005
23.7
Council Member Sims asked if, by changing the zoning, we are authorizing anything
allowable within that zoning to go in on the property? Mr. Harper explained that the
rezone would allow most Class 1 uses at that point, but Classes 2 and 3 require an
involved review process. Also, if in a Class 1 review they exceed category exemptions
in SEPA they will trigger a SEPA review. Mr. Harper emphasized the importance of
communicating to land owners and developers the necessity to be open, up front, and
clear. The approval process can go faster and the required improvements will be
identified more quickly.
City Manager Zais brought up the recent experience with Congdon that began as a non-
project rezone that came to Council. There was speculation and concern about whether
it was going to be a Wal -Mart or another big retailer. Legally the developer had a right to
submit the application for a non - project rezone. The neighbors had great concerns
because they did not have details about it. The question came up, should we be able to
do non - project, rezones when the neighbors feel like they are not getting the information
they should have, but staff does not yet have an application for a proposed use.
There is concern bout the public process with non - specific rezones; people won't know
what is going to end up next to them. It is important for the Planning staff to have
credibility and when we tell the public it is a non - project rezone, it really is. If we are
dealing with one of the few incidences where someone wasn't forthcoming and it
becomes clear there was a project in the beginning then we can withdraw our SEPA
determination and require the developer to start the process over.
Bruce Benson elaborated on some recent experiences and explained how things had
changed with the Growth Management Act as it relates to zoning and the Future Land
Use Map in the Comprehensive Plan. The timing of zoning and Comp Plan changes
was discussed. They cannot be done together because one is quasi - judicial and the
other is a legislative process. They are fundamentally different. When planning law
went through a revolution with the GMA, we were saddled with the difficult process of
dealing with the Comprehensive Plan. An array of regulations went into place on how to
make changes; we were no longer in charge of the process. GMA put a lot of sand in
the gears, which was intentional to slow down the process giving neighbors enough time
to see what is happening in their neighborhood.
Doug Maples said changes to the SEPA Ordinance are being submitted for the
September 6thCity Council meeting. There are two areas that are being changed, one
of which is the category exemptions. State law sets minimum standards; we're going to
reduce the commercial one. Another major area for review is where do appeals go;
we're suggesting they go to the Hearing Examiner. The Karmali issue was reviewed.
Mr. Harper commented that if we haven't engaged our non - project review carefully and if
neighbors (project opponents) felt we didn't engage the review, they would challenge it.
We can steer the process where it needs to go and the public can help. If we don't, the
opponents can take it over and the developer is the one who suffers a bigger price.
The other change in the SEPA ordinance is an appeal after the hearing. It presently
goes to Council; it is suggested they go to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Maples clarified
that the change is only suggested for legal non - conforming uses. Council Member Place
asked what weight they are to give the Hearing Examiner's decision. Mr. Harper
explained that for a SEPA determination, they are to give the Hearing Examiner
2
233:
ADJOURNED MEETING — AUGUST 23, 2005
substantial weight; recommendations do not require the same weight. Council Member
Place also stated she liked the County's ordinance better than the City's. Mr. Maples
responded that the City would prefer consistency between the two as well with regard to
non - conforming uses. It was the consensus of Council that the Planning Department
take the legally non conforming use chapter to the Council Economic Development
Subcommittee prior to reviewing it with the Regional Planning Commission. Council
Member Place offered to attend the subcommittee meetings if any of the Council
representatives were unable to attend.
The suggested changes to Table 4 -1 were distributed for review. Mr. Benson advised
that the changes were the result documenting the requests that have come to the
counter that aren't included on the existing table. Council Member Place expressed
concern about the one listed as "Unlisted Residential Facilities ". Mr. Benson pointed out
that there needs to be a vehicle for a business to come in and seek approval even
though it is not currently on the table. The dilemma is that if it is not a listed use on the
table, it is not permitted and that could be unintentionally harsh. Table 4 -1 has to be
adjusted with new ideas. Mr. Harper agreed there needs to be a method for
approaching uses not specifically listed. One suggestion would be for an unlisted use to
be referred to the Hearing Examiner for interpretation. This subject will be reviewed by
the Economic Development Subcommittee and then referred to the Regional Planning
Commission.
3. Audience Comments
Phil Hoge from the County's Planning Department responded with both a yes and no to
the question of whether they process rezones simultaneous with Comprehensive Plan
amendments. He explained there are two different zoning ordinances. With the County
zoning ordinance they do process rezones simultaneously. Their zoning ordinance was
adopted after the Comprehensive Plan and it specifically provided for doing rezones with
Comprehensive Plan amendments. They declared those types of rezones to be major
rezones, legislative rather than quasi judicial. But they also administer the Yakima
Urban Area Zoning Ordinance, which is identical to the City's and predates GMA. It is
unclear whether or not they can do those simultaneously. They have done it both ways,
but recently they decided to split them off and handle them the way the City does.
Council Member McClure brought up the idea of changing some of our zoning
definitions. He would like suggestions brought back to Council that would more easily
clarify the definitions to our community.
The next discussion was on the money -back guarantee for application processing. To
date neither the City nor the County has had to refund the fee. Our land use
applications are up; our permit processing is up 40% over last year. There is a
tremendous amount of activity going on. Mr. Benson stated that in his 14 years of
experience he has never seen more than 28 projects in the hopper at one time. The
other day we were at 82.
3